August 24, 2004 - City of Melbourne, Florida

CITY OF MELBOURNE, FLORIDA 

MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL 

AUGUST 24, 2004 

A regular meeting of the City Council was held in the City Council Chamber, 900 East 

Strawbridge Avenue, and was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor John A. Buckley. 

1. The invocation was given by Pastor Bruno Malara. 

2. Pledge of Allegiance. 

3. Roll Call. 

Present: John A. Buckley Mayor 

Richard Contreras Council Member, District 1 

Ed Palmer Council Member, District 2 

Pat Poole Council Member, District 3 

Cheryl Palmer Vice-Mayor, District 5 

Loretta Isenberg-Hand Council Member, District 6 

Jack M. Schluckebier, Ph.D. City Manager 

Paul R. Gougelman, III City Attorney 

Cathleen A. Wysor 

City Clerk 

Amy W. Elliott 

Assistant City Manager 

Cindy Dittmer 

Planning & Economic Development Director 

Absent: Grace Walker Council Member, District 4 (ill) 

4. Proclamations and Presentations 

Mayor Buckley declared September 13, 2004 as “Commodore John Barry Day”. Ed 

Reilly, Ancient Order of Hibernians in America, accepted the proclamation. 

5. Approval of Minutes – August 10, 2004 Regular Meeting 

Moved by E. Palmer/Contreras for approval. Motion carried unanimously. 

6. City Manager’s Report 

City Manager Jack Schluckebier reported on the following: 

• The Laborers’ International Union agreement has been overwhelmingly ratified by 

the LIU membership. Staff expects to place this item on the September 14 agenda 

for consideration. 

• Letters were sent to homeowners in the Turtle Mound/Parkway Drive and Stewart 

Road areas regarding their interest in receiving City services. The first of several 

meetings will be conducted in early September. (It is possible that this will lead to 

two or three annexation referenda.) 

Page 1 of 18




• The report outlines the steps taken by City staff in preparation of Hurricane 

Charley, including the operation of the Emergency Operations Center. The City 

had minimal damage as a result of the hurricane. 

• The report notes that staff is reviewing changes in population since the Council 

districts were adopted in 2002. The Code provides that there may not be more 

than a 10% variation in population between the largest and smallest district. That 

review should be concluded in mid-September. 

Immediately following Item 8, Mayor Buckley referenced the memorandum from staff 

asking for an item to be added to the consent agenda (request for lien reduction, 2664 

Hopi Drive). 

Moved by C. Palmer/Poole to add this to the agenda as Item 10 “c.” Motion carried 

unanimously. 

7. Public Comments 

Mayor Buckley announced that Council will not take public comments with regard to 

the PBA collective bargaining agreement. Comments regarding those issues should 

occur at the bargaining table. He added that the City is required to observe Chapter 

447, Florida Statutes, with regard to the bargaining process. And, it does not provide 

for bargaining with the Council. 

Milo Zonka, 1077 Jupiter Boulevard, reported that the Melbourne Airport Authority 

recently voted (4-3) to not withdraw its request to the Transportation Security 

Administration. (The Airport had asked for the creation of a clearinghouse to check 

the background of people who refuse to provide a reason for requesting information 

from airports and that certain information about airports be considered confidential.) 

Mr. Zonka asked those members of the City Council who disagree with the Airport 

Authority’s action to place their own comments on the TSA docket. 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

8. ORDINANCE NO. 2004-58 (CU-2004-11) AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SP-2004-12) 

AVON PETROLEUM: (Second Reading/Public Hearing) An ordinance granting a 

conditional use for an automobile service station and site plan approval to develop a 

convenience store with gas pumps on a 0.918-acre parcel zoned C-2 (General 

Commercial), located at the southeast corner of Apollo Boulevard and Sarno Road. 

(Owner - A One Petro, Inc.) (Applicant - Avon Petroleum) (Representative - Luke 

Miorelli, P.E.) (First Reading - 8/10/04) 

City Attorney Paul Gougelman read Ordinance No. 2004-58 by title. There were no 

disclosures by Council and no comments from the public. 

Moved by Poole/Hand for approval of Ordinance No. 2004-58. The roll call vote was: 





Aye: Contreras, E. Palmer, Poole, Hand, C. Palmer and Buckley 

Nay: None 

Motion carried unanimously. 

9. ORDINANCE NO. 2004-59 (A&V NO. 275): (Second Reading/Public Hearing) An 

ordinance to abandon and vacate a five-foot wide utility easement located adjacent to 

the east property line and a 15-foot wide rear canal maintenance easement except the 

westerly five feet for 713 Brookside Drive. (Owners - Michael W. Zarkowsky and Ann 

Del Gaudio) (First Reading - 8/10/04) 

Attorney Gougelman read the ordinance by title. There were no disclosures by 

Council and no comments from the audience. 

Moved by E. Palmer/Hand for approval of Ordinance No. 2004-58. The roll call vote 

was: 

Aye: Contreras, E. Palmer, Poole, Hand, C. Palmer and Buckley 

Nay: None 

Motion carried unanimously. 

10. CONSENT AGENDA: 

NEW BUSINESS 

Moved by Contreras/C. Palmer for approval of the consent agenda, Items “a – c.” 

In response to Council Member Ed Palmer’s question on Item “b”, Public 

Works/Utilities Director Robert Klaproth noted that this is a three-year contract and 

provides for the work to be done annually. He added that the life of the units will 

increase from one year to five years once the ozone phase has been completed. 

The question was called. Motion carried unanimously. 

The consent agenda was approved as follows: 

a. Annual contract award for maintenance and support services of the payroll 

system and human resources software, Hewitt Associates LLC, Chicago, IL - 

$31,653. 

b. Annual contract award for turn-key service to furnish all labor, materials, 

equipment, and supervision to remove, replace, and dispose of carbon in six 


Added to the agenda: 




filter units used at the Surface Water Treatment Plant, Norit Americas, Inc., 

Marshall, TX - $85,170/filter unit, total annual cost of $511,020. 

c. Lien Rescission CE-03-129: Request for lien reduction from $9,450 to $438.35 

(Guy Ercolani – 2664 Hopi Drive) if paid within 30 days. 

11. COUNCIL ACTION RE: A request for preliminary approval of Housing and Non- 

Housing Community Development Priorities to be included in the proposed 2005-2010 

Consolidated Plan for the Brevard County HOME Consortium and authorization to 

advertise the plan for public comment. 

Housing and Community Development Director Melinda Thomas briefed Council on 

the agenda report. The recommendation is for preliminary Council approval of the 

priorities identified in the agenda report for inclusion in the 2005-2010 Consolidated 

Plan and permission to advertise the Plan for public comment upon completion. 

Vice Mayor Cheryl Palmer said that mental health services is identified as a priority. 

She commented that she believes everyone recognizes that part of our homeless 

problem is mentally ill people on the streets. Mrs. Palmer noted that she does not find 

anything in the plan that specifically addresses that issue. 

Mrs. Thomas replied that most of the public service needs will be accomplished 

through non-profit partners. She added that the problems are bigger than CDBG 

funding could ever hope to address. 

Moved by Contreras/E. Palmer for approval of the recommendation. Motion carried 

unanimously. 

12. COUNCIL ACTION RE: A request for a waiver of the six month waiting period to 

reapply for a conditional use for consumption of alcohol at Mainstreet Pub. 

(Requested by Philip Nohrr for E & D Mainstream Corporation) 

From the agenda report: The application for a conditional use to allow consumption of 

alcohol on premises was unanimously denied by City Council on July 13, 2004. The 

applicant has requested a waiver of the six-month waiting period to reapply. The City 

Code provides that a waiver should be considered by the City Council if conditions 

affecting the property have materially changed or the request/plan has been modified. 

At this time, staff cannot determine if either of these will be met. The staff 

recommendation is for denial. 

Phil Nohrr, attorney representing the applicant, said that they would like to renew the 

application that was denied by City Council on July 13. Rather than pursuing the 

original request (for reconsideration) they would like to request a waiver of the six 

month waiting period. This will allow the application to go through the procedure again 





so they can present new information. He noted that there was information that was 

not presented on July 13 that would give them a shot at approval. And, at this point it 

is really a 4 ½ month waiver (six months from the July 13 denial). 

Continuing, Mr. Nohrr said that they believe this is worthy of a waiver. After the item 

was denied, his client submitted packets of information to Council. This is information 

that was not previously presented. Mr. Nohrr pointed out that his client has cleaned up 

the property, which was previously a problem in Downtown Melbourne. Since the City 

Code requires a 5/7 vote on approval of a waiver, Mr. Nohrr asked to address any 

issues raised by speakers. 

In response to Council Member Pat Poole, Attorney Gougelman read from the agenda 

report on this item. 

Mr. Schluckebier noted that the initial conditional use request had a recommendation 

for approval. Subsequent to Council’s action to deny, staff did not believe that it had 

the latitude to recommend beyond Council’s decision. 

Laird Gann, Executive Director, Melbourne Main Street, said that Main Street was 

thrilled six months ago when the applicant described how he wanted to develop this 

property. He noted that Main Street did not realize that it needed to be vocal 

throughout the process, including an appearance before Council. He recommended 

that Council Members tour the property and added that, when it is finished, it will be 

“the crown” in historic Downtown Melbourne. 

Council Member Loretta Hand said that she did not support this request when it came 

before Council because she thought this was a standalone bar trying to get around the 

smoking laws in Florida. Also, she said she did not know that the Downtown area 

supported these kinds of businesses. Mrs. Hand said that Main Street needs to inform 

Council when it supports a particular item. She added that she could support the 

request for waiver. 

Mrs. Palmer said she wished Mr. Gann had been present at the July 13 Council 

meeting. She noted that she had heard complaints about the previous establishment, 

which colored her view about this project. She noted that she has since been deluged 

with information about the applicant, caliber of person, etc. She commented that she 

feels terrible that Council had not been privy to this information before and she asked 

that Main Street contact Council in the future. 

Mrs. Poole said that there have been all kinds of problems at this location and with the 

establishment across the street from this business. Many people have been affected. 

She noted that the Downtown area already has enough bars and she does not believe 

this is the type of business needed to upgrade the Downtown area. Mrs. Poole 

recommended that Main Street look for more restaurants and entertainment for the 

Downtown area. 





Frank Tubito stated that his balcony overlooks the Mainstreet Pub patio. He reported 

that after meeting with the applicant and others, he is 100% for this project, especially 

in light of what previously was located on the property. He added that he spoke to 

several of his neighbors and they are also in support. 

Mr. Nohrr said that there is new information to present; therefore, he believes that they 

have met the technical requirements under the Code and want the chance to present 

the information in an organized fashion. For information, he said that at the July 

meeting, there was a question about screening the second floor. He noted that as a 

sign of good faith, the area has been screened. Mr. Nohrr asked the City Council to 

consider granting the waiver. 

Mrs. Poole pointed out that no new information has been presented; new facts have 

not been produced. She disagreed that the waiver should be approved. 

Council Member Ed Palmer said the rationale for requesting the waiver is that there is 

new information; however, new information has not been produced. 

Moved by Hand/C. Palmer for approval of the six month waiting period. 

Mrs. Poole asked the City Attorney to comment on the voting requirements. Attorney 

Gougelman said that five out of the six members present at this meeting would need to 

vote in favor. The City Code provides for a 5/7 voting requirement. 

The question was called. The roll call vote was: 

Aye: 

Contreras, Hand, C. Palmer and Buckley 

Nay: E. Palmer and Poole 

Motion failed. 

13. ORDINANCE NO. 2004-60 (CPA-2004-06) AND ORDINANCE NO. 2004-61 (CU- 

2004-08) WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SP-2004-11) ATLANTIC VISTA 

CONDOMINIUMS (WCG/NEEL-SCHAFFER): Ordinances providing for a 

Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a conditional use with site plan approval on a 

1.65±-acre parcel, in a C-P (Commercial Parkway) zoning district, located on the west 

side of Highway A1A, north of Provincial Drive. (Owner - Honey, Inc. (Jung-Lin Chen)) 

(Applicant/Representative - WCG/Neel-Schaffer) 

a. Ordinance No. 2004-60/CPA-2004-06: (First Reading/Public Hearing) An 

ordinance changing the land use from Commercial to Commercial/Medium 

Density Residential. (P&Z Board - 5/06/04) 

b. Ordinance No. 2004-61/CU-2004-08/SP-2004-11: (First Reading/Public 

Hearing) An ordinance granting a conditional use with site plan approval in 





order to develop a four-story, multiple-family residential condominium project on 

a 1.65±-acre parcel. (P&Z Board - 8/05/04) 

The City Attorney read Ordinance Nos. 2004-60 and 2004-61 by title. Planning & 

Economic Development Director Cindy Dittmer reviewed the agenda report. The 

Planning and Zoning Board voted 6 to 1 to recommend approval of the 

Comprehensive Plan Amendment and voted unanimously to recommend approval of 

the conditional use and Site Plan “A.” Staff recommended approval of Site Plan “B.” 

The difference in plans is the location of the driveway (Plan “A” on the west side and 

Plan “B” on the south side). The board and staff recommended the following 

conditions: 

a. Any change to the Site Plan (“A” or “B”) prepared by Rick Melchiori, P.E., with 

Project Number WN.01429.001, signed and sealed on 7/23/2004, will require 

re-evaluation by the Engineering Department and Planning and Economic 

Development Department. 

Any substantial change to the site plan will require review and approval by the 

Planning and Zoning Board, Local Planning Agency, and the City Council. A 

substantial change includes, but is not limited to: 1) a decrease of five percent 

of the open space or vegetative areas on site; 2) an increase in the number of 

units proposed; 3) any increase in building height; or 4) the addition of a 

driveway or substantial change in driveway location. 

b. The density of the development may not exceed 10 units per acre. 

c. Appropriate permits for any threatened or endangered species must be 

obtained as part of the construction review process. 

Mrs. Poole pointed out that Plan “B” also provides for two more parking spaces. Mrs. 

Dittmer agreed. 

Mayor Buckley called for disclosures. Mrs. Hand said that last Thursday Hugh Evans, 

Sr. phoned her regarding the site plan and the driveway. She said at that time he 

didn’t indicate there were two plans. Mrs. Poole said she attended the Planning and 

Zoning Board meetings on this item. 

Phil Nohrr, attorney representing the applicant, added that Mrs. Poole spoke in 

opposition to this item at the May 6 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mrs. Poole 

responded that she did not speak at that meeting. 

Continuing, Mr. Nohrr stated that this project meets or exceeds all of the City’s zoning 

and setback requirements. No variances will be requested and they are not asking for 

additional height. The project is a residential development in a predominantly 

residential area. This project will generate less traffic than if it were developed 

commercial. Additionally, there are no environmental issues associated with the 





property. The main stumbling block relates to ingress and egress. Mr. Nohrr stated 

that it is the applicant’s strong desire that Plan A be considered. However, they don’t 

want the entire plan denied because of this issue so they developed Plan B. 

Mr. Nohrr said that clearly Plan A, as identified by City staff and the applicant’s traffic 

engineers, is the safest means of ingress/egress. However, the neighbors don’t want 

the entranceway at this location. 

Mr. Nohrr said that another point that was made was “why not ingress/egress off of 

A1A.” He explained that everyone has identified A1A as the least safest. And, 

ingress/egress from A1A would conflict with the residents (from Provincial Drive) who 

have raised these concerns. The objective evidence points to Plan A; however, again, 

they are willing to accept Plan B. 

Mayor Buckley read a letter dated August 24 from Russell Scott, 170 and 272 

Provincial Drive, who indicates that he is opposed to the development of a 

condominium at this location because the value of his property would drop. He asked 

that the zoning remain as is. 

Laraine Scoma, 116 Lee Street, stated that this is an issue of compatibility. There are 

no other properties in the area zoned R-3. She agreed that a business would have 

more trips per day, but at sundown (condominium) residents would be hanging over 

their balconies peering into the (Provincial Drive) residents’ backyards. Ms. Scoma 

read from the Zoning Code (site plan approval for multiple-family dwelling districts) and 

made the following observations: the purpose of the Code is to encourage a 

harmonious relationship with surrounding developments; the development will have an 

affect on the privacy of adjacent areas; the proposed development is much denser 

than the surrounding development; the driveway provides a safety factor; the building 

will impact the residents’ light; and the development will impact traffic through services 

– trash pickups, deliveries, etc. – which is beyond the two vehicles per day for each 

unit. 

Ms. Scoma discussed the protected area located across A1A, north of Paradise Park 

and questioned if light from the subject development would stop sea turtles from 

coming ashore and laying their eggs. 

Ms. Scoma concluded by asking Council to review the compatibility issue as well as 

the impact on property values. 

Thomas Catalon, 243 Provincial Drive, submitted pictures that show scrub jays in the 

area. He reported that when he moved to this area in 1992, he was told that this 

property was a scrub jay sanctuary. Also, there are gopher tortoises on the property. 

He stressed that it is important that the environment be taken care of. 

In response to Attorney Gougelman, Mr. Catalon said he does not know who said that 

the property is a sanctuary. 





Barry Dutton, 251 Provincial Drive, said that the homes on Provincial are two stories 

high – not four. His second concern is the means of ingress/egress. Provincial has a 

bend at the entrance and it can be tricky, especially since they have so much 

pedestrian traffic. Mr. Dutton recommended a third plan, with ingress/egress onto 

A1A. He added that he knows development is inevitable; however, the residents 

would like for the development to be compatible. 

Mr. Dutton confirmed for Mrs. Palmer that there are one- and two-story developments 

on the abutting Harris Boulevard and Ocean View Lane. 

Inge Wemken, 253 Provincial Drive, said she is mainly concerned about the safety 

factor for the children. There are a lot of young school children on the block who walk 

to/from the school bus stop. She added that her second concern is for the “sanctuary,” 

which is home to turtles, birds and raccoons. She stressed that she is totally opposed 

to the development. 

Mason Blake, attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. Laniado, said that the Laniados own 

property north of this site. They wanted to register their concerns about traffic. Mr. 

Blake added that a commercial development would reduce the number of trips 

because it would provide for “capture” trips. Therefore, the proposed residential use 

would create more trips. A residential development might mean fewer trips to the site 

but it would mean more traffic on A1A. 

Peter Petrillo, 328 Provincial Drive, said that Plan A or B will put traffic on his street. 

Because of the curve it is a little dangerous at times. He added that he is not sure he 

objects to condominiums at this location, his problem relates to where the traffic will 

be. Common sense tells him that an entrance/exit on A1A is fine. He asked that this 

development not make the situation difficult for the residents of Provincial Drive. 

Mike Bruckner, 224 Provincial Drive, stated that his understanding is that the issue is 

about Plan A or B. Everything else has been approved. He added that he agrees with 

all the points that have been made; however, the major point is that Plan A would be a 

big mistake. Plan B is the only option, especially as it relates to children and traffic. 

Attorney Nohrr read from the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip 

Generation, 7 th Edition, which indicates that the property would generate 2,073 trips 

per day more if developed as commercial. He agreed that there is some recapture; 

however, even with 50% recapture, there will be far more trips from a commercial 

development than a residential development. 

Continuing, Mr. Nohrr commented on the following: they have submitted an 

environmental report prepared by Bill Kerr that shows the property has no 

environmental issues; if there were any environmental issues, they would have to 

follow all state laws and regulations; the lot coverage for commercial is the same as 

the lot coverage for a condominium; the height is 40’, which is the maximum that could 





be developed as a townhouse, condominium or commercial development; a 

commercial development has a lot more potential for negative impact, from a 

restaurant to an all night operation; and they believe they are more compatible as a 

residential than if developed commercial. 

Mr. Nohrr said the issue has been bogged down by ingress/egress. He concluded by 

agreeing with the conditions. 

Mrs. Palmer asked the distance from the closest condominium to the closest home. 

Mr. Nohrr said it is about 120 – 130’ from building to building. 

Following a brief discussion about sidewalks, Mrs. Dittmer confirmed that the applicant 

would be required to construct a sidewalk on his property. 

Mrs. Palmer referenced the issue about lighting and its impact on sea turtles. She 

said that public lands set aside for conservation are meant to be overgrown. And, 

there is a drop down to the beach. She asked Mr. Nohrr if he had any information 

about whether the lights from this project could light the area across the street. 

Mr. Nohrr said that although they have not tested he is convinced that the lighting will 

not be an issue for the sea turtles. 

Mayor Buckley read the recommendation and stated that the applicant’s attorney is 

willing to go along with Plan B. 

Mrs. Poole said that area residents left the Planning and Zoning Board thinking that 

Plan B would be the plan going to Council. However, it has been presented to Council 

with a recommendation for Plan A. She read from the district and intent of the 

Commercial Parkway classification in the Zoning Code. 

Continuing, Mrs. Poole said that the intent of the Commercial Parkway zone is to serve 

the needs of the motoring public – not to construct a multi-family development. She 

expressed concern with rezoning the property and noted that this will start a chain 

reaction. 

Moved by C. Palmer/Contreras to approve Site Plan B. 

Mrs. Palmer said she has read the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Board 

meetings. The area residents know the traffic and the local situation and from their 

expert point of view, Plan B is the safer of the two options. Regarding the concern that 

this condominium would block the view, the land was already zoned to allow a 40’ 

height. It could have been developed with a 40’ office building or restaurant. This is 

simply a change from commercial to residential. 





Mr. Palmer asked why staff recommended Plan A over Plan B. Mrs. Dittmer said 

based on a recommendation from the City’s Traffic Engineer regarding the safest 

location for ingress/egress. 

The maker/seconder agreed to consider the Comprehensive Plan ordinance first. 

Moved by C. Palmer/Contreras for approval of Ordinance No. 2004-60. Motion 

carried. Mrs. Poole voted nay. 

Moved by C. Palmer/Contreras for approval of Ordinance No. 2004-61 with Site Plan 

B. Maker/seconder agreed that the motion includes an amendment to Section 2 a. of 

the ordinance to reflect Site Plan B. 

Mrs. Poole asked the City Attorney if this plan meets all the requirements outlined in 

the City Code. Attorney Gougelman said Mrs. Poole is pointing out a glaring 

inconsistency in the Code. The Code refers to the “motoring public” in the C-P zone 

yet provides for a multi-family development with a conditional use. Multi-family is 

inconsistent with the district and intent. Mr. Gougelman said that the Code provision 

was adopted by a previous City Council and the legislative decision was made that the 

two mesh. Therefore, the application is properly before Council. 

Mr. Contreras referenced the allegation made by the applicant (that Mrs. Poole spoke 

in opposition to this item at a Planning & Zoning Board meeting). Attorney Gougelman 

said that he has reviewed the May 6, July 1 and July 16 Planning and Zoning Board 

minutes. He noted that Mrs. Poole did not speak at the May 6 meeting; however, she 

made a presentation to the board at the July 15 meeting. The minutes show that Mrs. 

Poole raised a number of issues/concerns; however, he is not prepared to say that 

due process was denied. 

Motion carried. Mrs. Poole voted nay. 

Recessed: 

Reconvened: 

8:28 p.m. 

8:39 p.m. 

14. ORDINANCE NO. 2004-62 (Z-2004-990) and ORDINANCE NO. 2004-63 (CU-2004- 

10) WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SP-2004-15) CASA RIO CONDOMINIUMS: (First 

Readings/Public Hearings) Ordinances providing for a change in zoning and granting a 

conditional use with site plan approval on a 1.00+-acre parcel, located on the east side 

of North Highway U.S. 1, south of Sarno Road, across from Adger Smith Lane. 

(Owner – Albert J. Bosco) (Applicant – David & Sherrie Bryant) 

a. Ordinance No. 2004-62/Z-2004-990: (First Reading/Public Hearing) An 

ordinance changing the zoning from C-2 (General Commercial) to C-1 

(Neighborhood Commercial). (P&Z Board – 8/05/04) 

b. Ordinance No. 2004-63/CU-2004-10/SP-2004-15: (First Reading/Public 

Hearing) An ordinance granting a conditional use with site plan approval to 





develop a four-story multiple-family residential condominium project on a 1.00±acre 

parcel. (P&Z Board – 8/05/04) 

Attorney Gougelman read the ordinances by title. Mrs. Dittmer reviewed the agenda 

report. The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of the 

rezoning request, and the conditional use and site plan prepared by David Bryant, 

P.E., with Job No. 240503C, with a signed and sealed date of July 14, 2004, subject to 

the following conditions: 

a. Any change to the site plan, prepared by David Bryant, P.E., with Job No. 

240503C, with a signed and sealed date of July 14, 2004, will require 

reevaluation by the Engineering Department and Planning and Economic 

Development Department. 

Any substantial change to the site plan will require review and approval by the 

Planning and Zoning Board, Local Planning Agency, and the City Council. A 

substantial change includes, but is not limited to: 1) a decrease of five percent 

of the open space or vegetative areas on site; 2) an increase in building height; 

3) any increase of 10 percent in building area; or 4) the addition of a driveway. 

b. The proposed building shall be substantially consistent with the rendering 

submitted by the applicant. 

c. A six-foot opaque fence will be required along the north property line where 

abutting the driveway. 

There were no disclosures by Council. Mayor Buckley opened the public hearing. 

Patricia Richardson, Minton Road, said she is representing Mr. and Mrs. Bryant (the 

applicants, who are out of the country. She noted that the project engineer is also 

present. She made the following points about the development: Mr. Bryant is a 

lifetime resident; this is a down-zoning from C-2 to C-1; the Future Land Use calls for 

High Density Residential on this site; they are not requesting any additional height or 

density; there will be less vehicle trips compared to a commercial development; they 

plan to have extensive landscaping and a Mediterranean style building; they have 

corresponded with the neighbors across Elbow Creek and have agreed to not allow 

lights on the back of the building to shine towards the water; it is approximately 470’ 

from the back of the neighbors’ homes to the back of Casa Rio; and they are planning 

luxury condominium units that average 1,600 s.f. with a $300,000 - $350,000 price 

range. Ms. Richardson concluded by asking for Council’s approval. 

Mr. Contreras referenced the August 10 letter from David Bryant distributed to Council 

that indicates they do not intend to build a seawall or boat slips. Ms. Richardson 

agreed. 





Shawn McDermott, 844 Whitmire Drive, said he can’t imagine what a four-story 

building will look like at this location. Currently it is nice and dark at night. The 

development will result in light from balconies shining on the river. He asked how the 

traffic will be controlled so people can enter/exit Sarno Road in a safe manner. Mr. 

McDermott concluded by saying Elbow Creek is narrow at this point and this 

development will impact his privacy. 

Bill Ferguson, project manager representing Mr. Bryant, explained that the closest 

residence will be 470’ away. In addition to the width of Elbow Creek, they are set back 

from the high and mean water line. The building being proposed is within the allowed 

height. 

Mr. Ferguson agreed with the conditions (read by Mayor Buckley). 

Mrs. Poole asked why no seawall was planned. Mr. Ferguson said that the area is 

heavily vegetated and the water is too shallow. They would rather leave the 

mangroves and aquatic plants. 

Responding to Mrs. Poole, Mr. Ferguson said that a retention area will trap any runoff 

from the parking area. The project is proposed with zero runoff into the creek. 

That concluded the speakers from the audience. 

Moved by Hand/E. Palmer for approval of Ordinance No. 2004-62. 

Mrs. Poole said that this is another case where development will destroy the view for 

other people. 

The question was called. Motion carried. Mrs. Poole voted nay. 

Moved by E. Palmer/Contreras for approval of Ordinance No. 2004-63. Motion 

carried. Mrs. Poole voted nay. 

15. RESOLUTION NO. 1891: (Public Hearing) A resolution authorizing transmittal of nine 

major Comprehensive Plan Amendments and one text amendment to the Department 

of Community Affairs. (P&Z Board - 8/05/04) 

Attorney Gougelman read Resolution No. 1891 by title. Mrs. Dittmer reviewed each 

amendment. (Comments are noted below following the specific amendment.) 

a. CPA-2004-11 (Intracoastal): Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the 

Future Land Use from Commercial to mixed-use *Commercial/High Density 

Residential on a 6.32-acre parcel, located on the east side of South Harbor City 

Boulevard, south of Cherry Drive, and north of NASA Boulevard. (Owner - 

Intracoastal Marina of Melbourne) (Applicant/Representative - David T. Menzel, 

MAI Architects Engineers) 





*Mrs. Dittmer corrected the agenda item to reflect Commercial/High Density 

Residential as opposed to Commercial/Medium Density Residential. She noted that 

the backup material in the package is correct. 

Mrs. Hand asked if the Coral Bay Restaurant is going to be destroyed. Mrs. Dittmer 

said that is staff’s understanding. The applicant intends to take everything but the 

office building and develop residential. That would include removal of the large, dry 

storage building and fueling stations related to the marina. The slips would perhaps 

remain for residential use. 

Mrs. Hand asked if we had any indication of the proposed height. She recalled that 

Mr. Rathmann (located on the west side of U. S. 1) is concerned about the view being 

blocked. 

Mrs. Dittmer noted that this is simply transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan 

Amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. It does not include 

approval of a development plan. The item would definitely return to City Council for a 

conditional use and site plan. 

Chris Romandetti, 705 South Harbor City Boulevard, said that they have numerous 

plans; however, nothing has been established. He referenced the cost for engineering 

fees and said they will begin that process after the amendment has been approved by 

the Department of Community Affairs. 

b. CPA-2004-12 (Dairy/Madison): A Comprehensive Plan Amendment 

designating a Future Land Use of Medium Density Residential on a 42.83-acre 

parcel, located west of Dairy Road, and north of Madison Avenue (a.k.a. Range 

Road). (Owners - Richard E & Micheline A Nichols, Jason W. Sauriol, Iglesia 

de Dios Pentecostal and Movimiento Internacional, Inc. & Development Group 

of West Melbourne) (Applicant - Development Group of West Melbourne) 

(Representative - Jake T. Wise) 

c. CPA-2004-13 (RJP Development): A Comprehensive Plan Amendment 

designating a Future Land Use of Industrial on a 39.4-acre parcel, located 

between John Rodes Boulevard and North Drive. (Owners - William C. Potter, 

Co-Trustee & Hubert C. Normile, Jr.) (Applicant - RJP Development 

Corporation) (Representative - Jake Wise) 

Attorney Phil Nohrr confirmed for Mrs. Poole that Mr. Pence has an interest in RJP 

Development Corporation. 

d. CPA-2004-14 (M-135, LLC): A Comprehensive Plan Amendment designating a 

Future Land Use of Industrial/Commercial on 37 acres and Low Density 

Residential on 138 acres, located west of I-95 and south of Eau Gallie 





Boulevard. (Owner/Applicant - M-135, LLC) (Representative - Scott M. 

Glaubitz) 

Mrs. Hand asked if the industrial area will backup to a residential area. Mrs. Dittmer 

said that the request for commercial/industrial is located along I-95. She agreed that 

additional buffer requirements would need to be addressed. 

Mr. Contreras asked about the two rectangles located on the map. Mrs. Dittmer said 

that they indicate billboard locations, which are not part of the Comprehensive Plan 

Amendment. The City does not permit billboards, so that issue would have to be 

addressed at the time of annexation. A brief discussion followed regarding billboards. 

Anna Glaubitz, BSE Consultants, said that there is an eastern portion to the property 

that is not shaded on the map. 

Mrs. Dittmer said that is probably an error on the part of the mapmaker. She added 

that this does not change the acreage; the total acreage is correct as noted. 

e. CPA-2004-15 (Palms 8 Theater Property): A Comprehensive Plan Amendment 

changing the Future Land Use from Commercial to Commercial/Medium 

Density Residential on a 10.28-acre parcel, located on the west side of North 

Babcock Street, south of Laurie Street, and north of Alma Drive. 

(Owner/Applicant/Representative – City of Melbourne) 

There was a brief discussion about the contract between Mr. Coy Clark and the City. 

Attorney Gougelman confirmed that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary 

to effectuate the contract. 

f. CPA-2004-16 (Annexation and Land Use Policy): A Comprehensive Plan 

Amendment to allow a text amendment to add a policy to the Future Land Use 

Element and Intergovernmental Coordination Element, which would allow an 

appropriate designation for Future Land Use once a property is annexed into 

the City from unincorporated Brevard County. (Owner/Applicant/Representative 

– City of Melbourne) 

Mrs. Palmer referenced the table and asked if the Low Density Residential includes 

our two new zoning designations. Mrs. Dittmer explained that our lowest use is Low 

Density Residential. A property coming into the City from the County, with an 

agriculture use, would receive the Low Density Residential designation with an AEU or 

REU zoning classification. 

g. CPA-2004-18 (Taranto): A Comprehensive Plan Amendment designating a 

Future Land Use of Medium Density Residential on a 30-acre parcel, located 

between Riverside Drive and Highway A1A, south of the intersection of Eau 

Gallie Boulevard and Highway A1A, north of Paradise Boulevard. (Owner - 

Vincent & Marie Taranto) (Representative - Vaheed Temouri) 





Mayor Buckley referenced the correspondence from James E. and Patricia D. Pruitt 

dated August 17. The Pruitts object to rezoning the property to R-2 and 

ingress/egress via Riverside Drive. Mr. Schluckebier explained that the zoning, 

ingress, egress, etc. is not part of this item. This item is for transmittal only to the 

Department of Community Affairs. The issues raised by the Pruitts will return to the 

Planning and Zoning Board and Council for consideration. 

In response to Mr. Palmer, Mrs. Dittmer clarified that the intent is for the 18-acre parcel 

to receive a Future Land Use of Low Density Residential and the 12-acre parcel a 

Future Land Use of Medium Density Residential. 

Mark LaRusso, 622 Sanderling Drive, stated that he has been appointed by the 

Sanctuary Homeowners’ Association Board of Directors to represent the residents on 

this issue. He noted that the main concern relates to the entire 30 acres changing to 

Medium Density Residential. Mr. LaRusso referenced the staff recommendation for 

the 18-acre parcel to receive a Low Density Residential land use. Additionally, he 

noted that a petition is being circulated and will be submitted to City Hall. 

Mr. LaRusso concluded by saying that the residents have proactively worked with Mr. 

Toranto and will continue to work closely with him. He asked for assurance that the 

entire 30 acres will not be designated Medium Density Residential. 

Vince Taranto, applicant, said that there has been confusion with regard to this 

property. He said that the intent was to apply for Low Density Residential because 

they plan to build an upscale single-family residential detached retirement community. 

After elaborating on the type of development, Mr. Taranto said he does not intend to 

develop high density apartments or townhomes. He added that the confusion is easy 

to understand because of the type of zoning being requested. 

Mr. Contreras asked Mr. LaRusso if everyone is on the same page with regard to this 

item. Mr. LaRusso said that they (the Sanctuary homeowners and the applicant) are 

getting there. The residents’ main concern is on the zoning. 

Mr. Taranto said that the residents should not be concerned with the zoning as much 

as they should be with the density of the land and the quality of the development. He 

said that they want to construct an upscale senior community and will be marketing the 

home and the property under the home. This type of development will not allow for an 

R-1AA or R-1AAA zoning designation. Rather, they would have to fall into the R-2 

zoning category with a binding site plan. 

Mrs. Poole asked Mr. Taranto to elaborate. Mr. Taranto said that the development 

would fall under Chapter 720 of the State Statutes. A person would buy a home and 

the property under the home. All other property would be held by a homeowners’ 

association as a common area. 





Mr. Palmer asked if this item will be re-written. Mrs. Dittmer referenced the very end of 

the staff write up which notes that the 12 acres would have a Medium Density 

Residential land use and the 18 acres would have a Low Density Residential land use. 

Mr. Palmer asked for an assurance on this item. 

Mr. Contreras asked if the binding development agreement would relate to the site 

plan. Attorney Gougelman said that the Planning and Zoning Board held up the 

zoning to allow Mr. Taranto, Mr. LaRusso, the attorney for the Sanctuary 

Homeowners’ Association and City staff an opportunity to work through. There will be 

deed restrictions and all parties should be happy with the end product. 

h. CPA-2004-19 (City of Melbourne): A Comprehensive Plan Amendment 

designating a Future Land Use of Public Lands and Institutions on a 314-acre 

parcel located on the west side of I-95 at the western terminus of Lake 

Washington Road. (Owner/Applicant/Representative - City of Melbourne) 

i. CPA-2004-20 (Parkway Drive, Area A): A Comprehensive Plan Amendment 

designating a Future Land Use of Low Density Residential on parcels totaling 

124 acres, located west of Wickham Road, north and south of Parkway Drive. 

(Administrative request by the City of Melbourne) 

j. CPA-2004-21 (Parkway Drive, Area B): A Comprehensive Plan Amendment 

designating a Future Land Use of Low Density Residential on parcels totaling 

116 acres, located adjacent to and west of Turtle Mound Road, south of 

Parkway Drive, and north of Lake Washington Road. (Administrative request 

by the City of Melbourne) 

Moved by E. Palmer/Contreras for approval of Resolution No. 1891. Motion carried 

unanimously. 

16. RESOLUTION NO. 1892: A resolution implementing the FY 2003-2004 Third Quarter 

Budget Review recommendations. 

The City Attorney read the resolution by title. 

Moved by Hand/E. Palmer for approval of Resolution No. 1892. Motion carried 

unanimously. 

Mrs. Elliott responded to Mr. Palmer’s general questions about the budget review. 

17. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES AND COMMUNICATIONS 

None. 

18. ADJOURNMENT 





Moved by Contreras/E. Palmer to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. 

The meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m. 

_________________________ 

City Clerk – 9/1/2004 

Approved by Council: September 14, 2004

August 24, 2004 - City of Melbourne, Florida

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?